PDA

View Full Version : The F6F is porked! heres how..



Blackdog5555
12-29-2004, 05:37 PM
Just the facts...IRL the F6F data is
top speed at sea level clean 330 mph;
top speed at altitude ( 16,000-18,000ft)clean 380mph;
Max dive speed: in excess of 550mph

i just tested these parameters

Pacific Fighter data;

top speed at sea level clean: 290mph w/o wep and 300mph with wep.
top speed at altitude clean, 25% fuel 16,000ft 260mph to 265mph IAS or 342 to 347mph actual, Using high speed supercharger. I am assuming that the speed bar shows IAS in MPH.

Max dive speed to sea level. wings broke off at 500mph.

I repeated these test several times. Its seems clear that all performance data is 10-15% less then RL data. the F6F was only designed to be 30mph faster than the zero but it seems that Oleg's gang wants to rewrite history to give the Japanese more of a fighting chance. Or they are PO'ed at Grumman. I really dont care that much but i am disappointed. The dive speed on the F4F is also pooched. The FM personnel arent stupid so what gives?

Blackdog5555
12-29-2004, 05:37 PM
Just the facts...IRL the F6F data is
top speed at sea level clean 330 mph;
top speed at altitude ( 16,000-18,000ft)clean 380mph;
Max dive speed: in excess of 550mph

i just tested these parameters

Pacific Fighter data;

top speed at sea level clean: 290mph w/o wep and 300mph with wep.
top speed at altitude clean, 25% fuel 16,000ft 260mph to 265mph IAS or 342 to 347mph actual, Using high speed supercharger. I am assuming that the speed bar shows IAS in MPH.

Max dive speed to sea level. wings broke off at 500mph.

I repeated these test several times. Its seems clear that all performance data is 10-15% less then RL data. the F6F was only designed to be 30mph faster than the zero but it seems that Oleg's gang wants to rewrite history to give the Japanese more of a fighting chance. Or they are PO'ed at Grumman. I really dont care that much but i am disappointed. The dive speed on the F4F is also pooched. The FM personnel arent stupid so what gives?

walsh2509
12-29-2004, 05:51 PM
I posted about trying to get off the deck in single mission (carrier take off)with the F6F and others and it dive into the sea just yards after you leave the deck.


I'd like to hear from piolts/old hands on this sim as to what I have to do to get the F6F and I think it was the F4U's into the air!

My Single Missions are set to easy flight, not torque wind anything, so even a penguin like me can get of the deck.

Thanks.......

roybaty
12-29-2004, 06:53 PM
I can get off the deck of a MOVING CV with full fuel, and drop tank in an F6f, no problem.

As for a static CV, you shouldn't have ever been able to get off, though it was nice since there are no moving DF CVs.

The solution is NOT the tweaking the take off parameters, it's making a DF server capable moving CV.

As for max speeds I haven't tested it, but please stop with the conspiracy theories. The FMs may be wrong here and there but there may be programatical issues that create these inconsistancies that aren't easy to remedy.

I myself agree about the FMs when facing AI aircraft, but my experiences against human opponents show differences (at least to me).

The AI FMs seem different to me than an online human opponent.

walsh2509
12-29-2004, 07:09 PM
If that reply was for me , sorry! This was not online. This was off line in a Single Mission and before I took off I had a look around F2 and the carrier was moving...

So with flaps set to Take Off and The enigne running 110% power, how come as soon as the tail wheel leaves the end of the deck the F6F starts to nose dive..

Could you please tell me how, or what more I have to do to stop it nose diving as soon as the tail wheel leaves the deck.

Thanks....

p1ngu666
12-29-2004, 07:12 PM
i could get 310/320 ias with trimmed out, rad closed 120% mix
100% fuel too

fordfan25
12-29-2004, 07:26 PM
i noticed also it seems a bit slower than it used to be.

VF-29_Sandman
12-29-2004, 07:29 PM
seems to me that 9 out of 10 of these whines is from those that are not in squads, probably their 16 or younger, bad attitude, and they refuse to listen to those stating what are proper procedures for takeoff in (plane name here). also seems they dont want pf to be an actual sim...they want 'afterburning turbochargers' that go to warp factor 3 just to launch, 5k a minute climb rate, etc. main reason i even got fb was the fact that oleg is tryin to make a sim as close to the real plane as possible. good thing oleg made the file system for the fm's/dm's locked and unmodifiable....or it would have turned into another cfs2 with a chitload of mod's from all these crybaby-refusal-to-follow-takeoff-procedure whineazz's.

Blackdog5555
12-29-2004, 07:47 PM
Well p1ngu...i tried again hoping i was wrong so i replicated your test. Full trim out, 120% rich, rad closed. Stated from 3000ft accellerated to 340mph to 600ft. the plane slowed to 300mph IAS which at 400ft is TAS. I tried with full fuel and empty.. results were the same.. Gravity and weight are not modeled well if at all in this game.

VF-29_Warlock
12-29-2004, 07:50 PM
I thought Oleg had pork the hellcat and corsair after the 3.03, but after 1500 hundred take-off attempts. I found that what Oleg and his team had did was too put FM's more inline with actual take-off performance, " A Job Well Done Oleg". If I have a beef it would be to somehow have the CV's moving in a DF map, other wise swing your plane around taxi to the end of the deck, then take-off, no more than 50% fuel load.

Blackdog5555
12-29-2004, 07:53 PM
Well p1ngu666...i tried again, hoping i was wrong so i replicated your test. Full trim out, 120% rich, rad closed. Stated from 3000ft accellerated to 340mph to 600ft. the plane slowed to 300mph IAS which at 400ft is TAS. I tried with full fuel and empty.. results were the same.. Gravity and weight are not modeled well if at all in this game. YOU MUST WAIT AT LEAST TWO MINUTES AT LEVEL FLIGHT GO GET GOOD DATA.. But you showed me howto get an extra 10mph out of the bird. thanks.

RL data of Grumman F6F-3 'Hellcat': Type: Single Seat Fighter; Entered Service: 1943; Wingspan: 42'10" (16'1" folded); Wing Area: 334 sqft; Length: 33'7"; Weight: 9042 lbs, 11,380 lbs (normal load); Speed: 335 mph (sea level), 375 mph at 17,300'; Engine: 2000 hp, 18 cyl, Pratt and Whitney R2800-10; Fuel Cap: 144 gal; Range: 1090 miles (normal) at 160 mph, 1590 miles with 125 gal drop tank; Ceiling: 38,400'; Armament: 6-.50 cal MG (400 rpg) plus alternative loads of 2x1000 lb bombs or 6x5" rockets. the f6f-5 had an 2200hp. some claim top speed of 400mph for the F6F-5 too.
Since dive speed and gravity are not modeled correctly, top speed at SL is important.

roybaty
12-29-2004, 07:53 PM
My CV takeoffs were offline after the 3.03 patch, haven't tried it online from a moving CV. But from what I've heard the same deal. Taking off from a static CV with a full load is difficult if not impossible, which is realistic (unless they add catapaults)

I have a suspicion they are working on getting a moving DF server CV working because of the 2 test runway objects. Heres hoping.

VF-29_Sandman
12-29-2004, 07:55 PM
in all rl pilot accounts, none said anything about the deck crew just pullin the chocks away from a powered up fighter. no way in hell would u be able to pull chocks from under a ship that's having 2000hp cranked.

WUAF_Badsight
12-29-2004, 08:01 PM
what data does the Object Viewer say ?

if it is or isnt hitting the numbers according to that then you do/do not have a case

if the object Viewer data is wrong , then they have the wrong data about the hellcat at Maddox Games

try giving them a email about this

x__CRASH__x
12-29-2004, 08:04 PM
Where did you get that RL data? Just curious.

Blackdog5555
12-29-2004, 08:05 PM
And again, for who think its ok to pork a plane's flight performance so that the take off from moving carriers is more accurate, well i just think you are wrong. lol. Its like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Now, If the game was called "Carier Take Off and Landing". i might understand. Otherwise, you completely missed the point. completely. I am sure the code oleg is using isnt sophisticated enough to model take off and flying correctly at the same time. But, i would rather have correct flying speed then correct take off speed. just logical.

VF-29_Sandman
12-29-2004, 08:22 PM
mebby u should go back to cfs2 and try to take off from a carrier in a corsair there. u wont even get 3' from the deck before swimmin.

x__CRASH__x
12-29-2004, 08:29 PM
If its accurate, then great. We can stick two carriers in line to compensate for the static carriers in DF maps. I just want accurate FM's. But all we've seen is someone posting their data. Who's data is it?

I could make a post saying the 109 is porked, and here is my data:

speed at sea level: 693 kph
speed at 4000m: 1,457 kph
Max dive speed: 13,973 kph

ammo load: 460 rounds of mk108

I mean seriously, don't just throw data around without a substantial source. "Some book" isn't a source either. They could just be adding some filler to sell pages.

Blackdog5555
12-29-2004, 08:31 PM
http://journals.aol.com/cv11njrep/USSIntrepidCVCVACVS-11andNavalAv/entries/759...Is one site i googled. but of course data is always borrowed from another source..alot of info on the web and its fairly consistant. I also have my own library but Sea level data is absent. Ive seen sea level speeds from 327 to 335 (loaded) so i'd say 330 is a fair average. The big problem with the FM (in this sim) is that weight is not factored in dive speed so the AM6 dives just as fast as the F6F (in this game). I was able to outdive a AI F4U in a Zero so i tested dive accelleration (with a stopwatch)and found out that the planes are identical. there have been other post regarding the dive accellaration of all divers being equal. So what Oleg does is to terminate dive by terminal velocity, (wings fall off) but the wings on a F6F should stay on past 550mph but they fall off at @500. Zeros should fall off @400 but stay on until 460mph. just the fact. It just means the only escape tactic for allied fighters isnt available. thats all. the F4F has no terminal velocity in RL but here its set at @450 mph same as the Zero..Oleg is aware just wondering what the deal is.

Blackdog5555
12-29-2004, 08:34 PM
http://journals.aol.com/cv11njrep/USSIntrepidCVCVACVS-11andNavalAv/entries/759

x__CRASH__x
12-29-2004, 08:42 PM
That is just some dude's website. Not an official data source or document.

Blackdog5555
12-29-2004, 08:48 PM
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/F6F.html


here is another one. But really, anyone can get this info. Anyone who sits on their keyboard and says "prove it me" needs a lesson on "how to google".. and IMHO, the pre patch F6F took off way to easily (carrier) but the post patch carrier take off is too difficult. both not realistic.

tttiger
12-29-2004, 09:51 PM
Okay, Crash (you were obnoxious the first time I ever flew with you and you haven't grown up a bit since then, which is why I never flew with you a second time), this is from "America's Hundred-Thousand," which most people consider The Bible on WWII US fighters, pp. 555 and 556:

This is for the -5. The text points out there is considerable difference between the Navy Data and the Manufacturer's Data, with Manufacturer's Data anywhere from 10 mph to 30 mph faster.

Navy Data (assumes blower is turned up as per the manual -- settings are neutral, low and high):

Under 6,000 feet, MILITARY Power: 314 mph to 324 mph.
18,000 ft to 20,000 ft, MILITARY Power: 365 mph to 370 mph
Best Speed, MILITARY Power: 380 mph at 23,000 feet.
Best Speed COMBAT(WEP) Power: 380 mph at 18,000 feet

Grumman Data (can we use that word in here? May be banned http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif):

Sea Level, MILITARY Power: 335 mph
20,000 ft, MILITARY Power: 385 mph
24,000 ft, MILITARY power: 390 mph
Sea level COMBAT Power: 350 mph
20,000 Feet, COMBAT Power: 400 mph

Weight in the tests varied slightly, ranging from 12,427 pounds to 12,740 pounds.

It appears BlackDog is using the Navy Data, which is the slower (more conservative) of the two. The numbers aren't an exact match but very, very close.

Now, I am not an engineer and would not pretend to be capable of running speed tests using proper protocols. So I can't vouch for BlackDog's numbers.

But I seriously doubt (don't know for a fact) that the Oleg performance is well below either the Navy or (flinch!) Grumman Data.

At least the friggin thing shouldn't fall off the end of the boat.

And the wings shouldn't come off in a 500 mph dive.

And you have a highly reliable source for the RL data.

Bottom Line: Oleg's Hellcat is Porked and needs fixing.

Happy New Year!

ttt

VW-IceFire
12-29-2004, 10:01 PM
Good stuff tttiger...

I'd say we all do a little testing on Crimea, send in the tracks to the e-mail, and see what happens. Compair real speed data VS our data that should do.

Which F6F are we talking about F6F-3 Late or F6F-5?

tttiger
12-29-2004, 10:16 PM
The data is for the -5 with the R-2800-10W engine (the W is for water injection, or WEP as we call it or COMBAT power as it is called in the Data)). The -3s originally were fitted with the R-2800-10 (no WEP, or COMBAT power).

BUT...

"Retrofitting was effected on F6F-3 airplanes as quickly as practical," the book notes. So late war F6F-3s should be virtually identical in performance to -5s. I'm not sure if that's what Oleg meant by the term "Late" but that sounds logical.

ttt

BuzzU
12-29-2004, 10:23 PM
While he's fixing the FM he can fix the fecking windows too. Sheesh! Like my eyesight isn't bad enough.

TwoTall2
12-29-2004, 10:42 PM
Interesting to see how you guys, are so into this sim. WoW!! I am into it as well, just I dont have an internet connection yet, so the online thingy right now is a tough one.

I hope Oleg can fix it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WUAF_Badsight
12-29-2004, 10:44 PM
ive swopped my HD with FB on it out for the night

what does the damm Object Viewer say >? because if the write up on the Hellcat is there , THATS the data they have used in setting up the Hellcats FM

if it is or isnt hitting the numbers according to that then you do/do not have a case

if the object Viewer data is wrong , then they have the wrong data about the hellcat at Maddox Games

try giving them a email about this , posting here achieves nothing except to give you a public place to see your complaints typed on in the font style of your choosing

p1ngu666
12-29-2004, 10:45 PM
i googled too, seems i found manufactor data.
ttiger, use crimea on qmb, 12am, and trim and the correct mix/supercharger setting for the height.

ill run some more tests tomoz, i guess it might be abit too slow

Blackdog5555
12-29-2004, 10:56 PM
ok, i dont know if the speed bar is accurate and i dont know if my conversion from IAS to True Airspeed (TAS" are good.. I presume so. I am using the bomsight conversion table offered here on the forum. seems accurate. Anyway did some high altitude testing after seeing some data on the web about superb high level performance. tttiger data seems to confirm this. thanks. anyway at 22,000ft. clean. 3rd stage supercharer. WEP. clean trim. the speed bar was showing @260mph in level flight after a minute of flight. This converts to @380mph TAS per the conversion table. I dont know what the story is but it seems the F6F-5 wants to fly 260mph IAS at all altitudes. LOL. Somebody else do this to confirm....so if you get over 20,000ft Olegs F6F starts to behave more like like a real F6F. goods news for those who fly over 20,000ft.

x__CRASH__x
12-29-2004, 11:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tttiger:
Okay, Crash (you were obnoxious the first time I ever flew with you and you haven't grown up a bit since then, which is why I never flew with you a second time) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL Give me a break. I was recruiting you and being friendly. We flew against each other. I flew a 109 (imagine that) I shot you down with a mk108 cannon and you lost your feckin mind! called me a loser, or a newbie, or some other ****. I told you to get bent.

Am I obnoxious? To a guy with a stick up his a$$ like you, I sure am.

WTF do you have to call me out like that in this thread for anyway? Jeezus. Some people really need to evaluate their reason for being. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Blackdog5555
12-29-2004, 11:02 PM
PS:But according to ttiger data, the FM is off more then i first stated. Most of our fun happens at sea level and it seem the F6F is about 50 mph too slow. THATS A LOT. especially if you cant out-dive a zero. I know, i know, gravity and weight are difficult to model below the horizon in these games but "speed" isnt.

WUAF_Badsight
12-29-2004, 11:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
Am I obnoxious? To a guy with a stick up his a$$ like you, I sure am. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
sig material

BuzzU
12-29-2004, 11:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
ok, i dont know if the speed bar is accurate and i dont know if my conversion from IAS to True Airspeed (TAS" are good.. I presume so. I am using the bomsight conversion table offered here on the forum. seems accurate. Anyway did some high altitude testing after seeing some data on the web about superb high level performance. tttiger data seems to confirm this. thanks. anyway at 22,000ft. clean. 3rd stage supercharer. WEP. clean trim. the speed bar was showing @260mph in level flight after a minute of flight. This converts to @380mph TAS per the conversion table. I dont know what the story is but it seems the F6F-5 wants to fly 260mph IAS at all altitudes. LOL. Somebody else do this to confirm....so if you get over 20,000ft Olegs F6F starts to behave more like like a real F6F. goods news for those who fly over 20,000ft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you want to see TAS. Just switch to no cockpit view.

x__CRASH__x
12-29-2004, 11:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Anyone who sits on their keyboard and says "prove it me" needs a lesson on "how to google" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You aren't trying to prove it to me dude. You want it fixed, you need to prove it to Oleg. And Oleg is a serious stickler for the resources his data comes from... so I am told. I don't personally get into FM. Not my thing. But I have several friends who do. And they can prove things till their faces turn blue. Oleg comes back with a "We have different data" reply, and thats all they hear.

FM is a big bear to wrestle with, and usually you get clobbered.

DakaDakaDaka
12-29-2004, 11:18 PM
hmmm

there seems to be a lot of this and that about speeds and performance at various altitudes, for various aircraft.

no offense meant, i just cant help but think theres a tad bit of pedantic behaviour going on?

im sure just about everyone is correct in some way about their claims.

i step back a bit and think... i paid 80 bucks for this sim, and i lurve it. I do fly online... i outturn people in spits at low altitude, I get shot down when my FW190 runs out of speed, i love the agility of early 109s, my zero is wonderfully flickable, i feel its a fist full of value for what i paid.

if i paid several hundred dollars, i'd want mil spec spot on-ness out of the box.

ease up people, stop making mountains out of mole hills and dont expect the world for a smattering of coins? Frankly, you're getting a **** lot of sim for your few dollars and maybe you should lift your super critical eye off your microscopes and ease down a bit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

profit and effort means that to spend programming time on this would lead to a law of diminishing returns, and the endless stream of complaints would not stop.

Ever.

my personal beef is that the gun cameras ive dug up lead me to think the bombers are waaay tougher than modelled, and the jap planes are stunningly flimsy IRL, somewhat tougher here.

but i lurve it, warts and all. Still the best sim ive played since falcon 3.0 back in the day.

*edit*

i used to note top speeds I could coax out of my old ducati on different days, and sometimes theyd be **** near 20kmh different. Rarely would i get 220kmh out of the 750 twice in 20 attempts.

i put irregularities in this sim down to my own imagination in so far that the claims are always higher than the production craft, engine was tuned flat that day http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, headwind etc. The real world is not digitally perfect...

in the pursuit for anlly attentive perfection i think some may need to allow for factors they never considered IRL. I like the sims accuracy, and im a plane nut.

meh.

Tailgator
12-29-2004, 11:53 PM
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf

Blackdog5555
12-29-2004, 11:56 PM
Daka, u are correct in many respects, this game is only for fun and not to prove anything. I am a bit "rigid" on FM. If the F6F is rated at 330mph at sea level then i would like to see it do that. 30mph, when you are trying to out run a zero is life. also since Oleg took our ability to outdive japanese fighters, speed is the only defense. and you are right about DM. the Japaese fighter take way too much damage. Oh Oh.. here comes _Crash_ . "show me your data" and Crash your are right about Oleg. he is a hard head. He believes a Zero can do a super controlable 425 mph dive just as fast as a corsair. really are u that naieve or gullable. tttiger was right about you. LOL. Oleg wants playablitity over realism. that simple. It wouldnt be fun if the Zero's werent "competative". You want my data...you cant handle my data..anyway im still laughing. Happy new year. Cheers

x__CRASH__x
12-30-2004, 12:01 AM
Dude, seriously, feck you if you are gonna throw a punch like that. You don't know a godd@mn thing about me. So don't even get started with some personal attack just cause I didn't hump your leg.

You Fuc kin UBI rats are really pissing me off with your BS tonight.

And I love how you make assumptions about people. Not just me, but even Oleg cause you don't agree with his data. Real cool dude. You are the man! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

sapre
12-30-2004, 12:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Daka, u are correct in many respects, this game is only for fun and not to prove anything. I am a bit "rigid" on FM. If the F6F is rated at 330mph at sea level then i would like to see it do that. 30mph, when you are trying to out run a zero is life. also since Oleg took our ability to outdive japanese fighters, speed is the only defense. and you are right about DM. the Japaese fighter take way too much damage. Oh Oh.. here comes _Crash_ . "show me your data" and Crash your are right about Oleg. he is a hard head. He believes a Zero can do a super controlable 425 mph dive just as fast as a corsair. really are u that naieve or gullable. tttiger was right about you. LOL. Oleg wants playablitity over realism. that simple. It wouldnt be fun if the Zero's werent "competative". You want my data...you cant handle my data..anyway im still laughing. Happy new year. Cheers <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A6M5's maximum dive limit speed was 470mph, so is it so weird that A6M5 can go a controllable dive at 425mph?
Or are you talking about A6M2?
Does really A6M can absorb too much damage?
Can you post a track proving it?
I can always rip off the wing or lit the engine of A6M with short burst of .50cal so I'm curious to see it.

fordfan25
12-30-2004, 12:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TwoTall2:
Interesting to see how you guys, are so into this sim. WoW!! I am into it as well, just I dont have an internet connection yet, so the online thingy right now is a tough one.

I hope Oleg can fix it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HA you aint seen nothin yet lol. just say .50 cal and tiger tank in the same breath and watchm go lol. also throw in a little " FW190s cockpit is wrong " the fur will fly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif i think i get more fun outa this dang forum than i do the game HA. great bunch of guys though ...most of the time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BSR_Dude
12-30-2004, 12:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
We flew against each other. I flew a 109 (imagine that) I shot you down with a mk108 cannon and you lost your feckin mind! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems to me that was downright unfriendly. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

x__CRASH__x
12-30-2004, 12:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TwoTall2:
Interesting to see how you guys, are so into this sim. WoW!! I am into it as well, just I dont have an internet connection yet, so the online thingy right now is a tough one.

I hope Oleg can fix it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
HA you aint seen nothin yet lol. just say .50 cal and tiger tank in the same breath and watchm go lol. also throw in a little " FW190s cockpit is wrong " the fur will fly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif i think i get more fun outa this dang forum than i do the game HA. great bunch of guys though ...most of the time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just to summarize...

- There is no way in a he|| you can "bounce" .50 cal rounds off the ground to "take out" a tiger tank from underneath!

- The 190 cockpit has been porked since it was put in this game. It has been proven to be porked. The pilot sat on a parachute. A picture was taken in a recovered 190... without the seat parachute. So the guy sat lower. So now we all suffer.

Cardinal25
12-30-2004, 12:30 AM
Ban Crash, he is an asshat!

BuzzU
12-30-2004, 12:36 AM
Ban Cardinal. He runs an asshat forum.

x__CRASH__x
12-30-2004, 12:42 AM
Ban Buzz.



no reason

TwoTall2
12-30-2004, 12:44 AM
Like sands through the hour glass of time....So are the days of this forum..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

So there are a few lil gliches it doesn't detract from the fact that this is the best and one of the most accurate sims of our time (IMHO)

A good violin does not make a good piece of music, its the violinist who plays the violin

TwoTall2
12-30-2004, 12:45 AM
crash I like what you did with the greyskies site, I have registered but will only be up mid Jan.

Athosd
12-30-2004, 12:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by walsh2509:
I posted about trying to get off the deck in single mission (carrier take off)with the F6F and others and it dive into the sea just yards after you leave the deck.


I'd like to hear from piolts/old hands on this sim as to what I have to do to get the F6F and I think it was the F4U's into the air!

My Single Missions are set to easy flight, not torque wind anything, so even a penguin like me can get of the deck.

Thanks....... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The F6F single player carrier takeoff mission has you on CV cruising at ~20km/h. For this one you should be able to get up without taxiing back to the fantail first. Set flaps to Landing (max lift), go to full power (at 120% mix if you like) and release chocks - push forward on the stick until the tail wheel comes off the deck (you will accelerate faster).
This config should see you leave the deck at ~130km/h - immediately raise gear and climb gently away.

For the F4U in the same mission you start on an Escort carrier. For this one you have to taxi back to the fan tail - as close to the edge as possible. Same config as above - get the tail up asap and you should leave the deck at just over 120km/h (immediately raise gear) - enough to clear the waves (barely).

Hope that helps

Cheers

Athos

WUAF_Badsight
12-30-2004, 12:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Oh Oh.. here comes _Crash_ . "show me your data" and Crash your are right about Oleg. he is a hard head. He believes a Zero can do a super controlable 425 mph dive just as fast as a corsair. really are u that naieve or gullable. tttiger was right about you. LOL. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
wow

your a *******

crash hasnt even disagreed with you & your willing to dish out the insults

lord help someone who said your wrong

WUAF_Badsight
12-30-2004, 12:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cardinal25:
next time my six is hot , i sure hope Crash is nearby! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
FIXED

x__CRASH__x
12-30-2004, 12:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TwoTall2:
crash I like what you did with the greyskies site, I have registered but will only be up mid Jan. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*cough* GHOST Skies *cough*

What team do you fly with? Have they registered?

x__CRASH__x
12-30-2004, 12:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cardinal25:
next time my six is hot , i sure hope Crash is nearby! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
FIXED <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats the gayest "fix" I've seen in some time! lol

fordfan25
12-30-2004, 12:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TwoTall2:
Interesting to see how you guys, are so into this sim. WoW!! I am into it as well, just I dont have an internet connection yet, so the online thingy right now is a tough one.

I hope Oleg can fix it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
HA you aint seen nothin yet lol. just say .50 cal and tiger tank in the same breath and watchm go lol. also throw in a little " FW190s cockpit is wrong " the fur will fly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif i think i get more fun outa this dang forum than i do the game HA. great bunch of guys though ...most of the time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just to summarize...

- There is no way in a he|| you can "bounce" .50 cal rounds off the ground to "take out" a tiger tank from underneath!

- The 190 cockpit has been porked since it was put in this game. It has been proven to be porked. The pilot sat on a parachute. A picture was taken in a recovered 190... without the seat parachute. So the guy sat lower. So now we all suffer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

see. lmao.

my 2 cents:

.50s and tigers: i dont have a clue to bouncing 50s off roads but if crash says it cant be done then im inclind to disagree.im not only sure but willing to prove it, if crash will just sit still long enough.

the FW190: iv have never seen a real fw190. i have never been in a real fw190,i have no idea what a FW190 is how ever crash says its not right so i take up the position that the FW190s cockpit is 100% correct it had very poor visabilty and any photos to the contrary are a hoax. except the one with bigfoot sitting in the seat.that one was for real. after words this 8 foot tall beast made the following comment. "man i couldnt see a fargin thing the dash panal was all up in my face".

LOL just haveing some fun with ya crash http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TwoTall2
12-30-2004, 01:01 AM
I haven't signed up on a team yet, would be a bit pointless to sign up and I can't fly.

My apologies GHOST Skies!!!

I want to suggest to some of my mates here is South Africa to sign up and use SAAF Skins. (Just an idea) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WUAF_Badsight
12-30-2004, 01:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
Thats the gayest "fix" I've seen in some time! lol <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
oh come on , youve seen gheyer recently

x__CRASH__x
12-30-2004, 01:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
...if crash says ... then im inclind to disagree. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You just made Sprite come out of my nose!! Bestard!

FYI: Sprite is a registered Trade Mark of the Coca Cola Company, copyrighted as recently as 1994. I just had to pay them $0.67 for refering to their product.

fordfan25
12-30-2004, 01:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
...if crash says ... then im inclind to disagree. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You just made Sprite come out of my nose!! Bestard!

FYI: Sprite is a registered Trade Mark of the Coca Cola Company, copyrighted as recently as 1994. I just had to pay them $0.67 for refering to their product. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO

TwoTall2
12-30-2004, 01:32 AM
FW190A6 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/TwoTall/FW190A6View.jpg)

This kinda looks familiar (IMHO)

TwoTall2
12-30-2004, 01:38 AM
Here are some more, a buddy of mine went to our war museum earlier this month.

Lurking (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/TwoTall/Lurking.jpg)

Rare ME262 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/TwoTall/ME262.jpg)

ME262 Cockpit (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/TwoTall/ME262Cockpit.jpg)

Bf109F (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/TwoTall/109F2Trop_2.jpg)

fordfan25
12-30-2004, 01:39 AM
ot as were geting lol i gotta say in all honsty i have no idea if the fw190s pit is right or not. i do find it hard to believe that as smart as the germens were back then that thay woulda made such a bad front view.

ICDP
12-30-2004, 01:48 AM
In the F6F-5 I can reach 325mph TAS at sea level, at rated altitude I can reach 385mph TAS. According to the OFFICIAL USN data I am 8mph too fast at SL and 5mph too fast at altitude. I would have no problems if these speeds were increased by 5mph, tough the 50mph you are asking for is plainly rediculous. I have seen some test documents that show the P51B doing 450mph at altitude, the official speed is 437mph. I have seen test data showing the Fw190D9 doing 430+ mph at altitude but the official speed at altitude is 425 mph. My point here is that quite a few aircraft in the game don't get speeds shown in some test data but they do reach official performance figures.

The initial poster is even using speedbar for his speed estimates and it uses incriments of 10mph, use no cockpit view and read TAS. He comes here proclaiming the F6F-5 to be far too slow rather than say maybe I'm testing it wrong due to invalid testing procedures. If I use your poor testing method I find the Fw190A8 is too slow at SL by 30mph, the Spitfire IXc is too slow by about 20mph and the Corsiar by about 30mph. In fact each of the aircraft I mentioned above hits their rated SL top speeds by within a few kph.

Here is a tip for speed testing:

YOU MUST USE TAS FROM NO COCKPIT VIEW

x__CRASH__x
12-30-2004, 01:59 AM
TooTall, I know you are in South Africa, but where is that museum?

TwoTall2
12-30-2004, 02:05 AM
Crash its the Johannesburg War Museum near the Johannesburg Zoo, if you know the area its close to Zoo lake in saxonworld

x__CRASH__x
12-30-2004, 02:07 AM
DOn't know the area, but I'm googling cheap plane tickets right now! lol


j/k

TwoTall2
12-30-2004, 02:09 AM
Crash here is the war museum piccies (http://games.saix.net/cgi-bin/sgsbb/ikonboard.cgi?s=289249b695593dfec944895bb3cec1ad;a ct=ST;f=150;t=1041)

x__CRASH__x
12-30-2004, 02:19 AM
I'm sick with envy! You get to sit in them!!! Here in the U.S. German fighters are worth several million dollars, and the museums I've visited have the roped off and you can't even get close to them! I asked to get a ladder to get some pics and got laughed at! lol

TwoTall2
12-30-2004, 02:26 AM
Actually we sweet talked the curator into letting us sit in them. After explaining that we fly online and I build the plastic kits too, He was quite accomodating. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The is a mozzie hanging off the ceiling that is said to be airworthy, so it the FW190 and ME262, but the Museum curator says that that is as far as they will move.....bugga

x__CRASH__x
12-30-2004, 02:31 AM
Fortunately, I'm a multi-billionaire, and I will buy them and fly them all!

or not.

Fehler
12-30-2004, 02:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
ot as were geting lol i gotta say in all honsty i have no idea if the fw190s pit is right or not. i do find it hard to believe that as smart as the germens were back then that thay woulda made such a bad front view. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif They weren't that smart... they allowed a doofus like Hitler to come into power.

But the real question is, why did Messerchmitt and Tank forget to put aileron and rudder trim in the 109 and 190?

Oh, and Crash... on Oleg's special "Bouncy" grass/snow/sand.. I believe .50 cal rounds could hit the under carriage of a Tiger.

Perhaps that is the material superballs are made from..

x__CRASH__x
12-30-2004, 02:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Oh, and Crash... on Oleg's special "Bouncy" grass/snow/sand.. I believe .50 cal rounds could hit the under carriage of a Tiger. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

DakaDakaDaka
12-30-2004, 04:23 AM
this excerpt is drawn from the warbirds forum site, explaining tactics against japper fighters from the Flying Tigers.

IAS values and knowing your enemy as you know yourself seems to be the overriding factor.

i guess is does make the point that, if you want your lemonade to taste right you'd better use real lemons?

or something like that.

-

Tactics:

First and formost is a fact often overlook by many, which was the Flying Tigers only attack IF they had the advantage. (Altitude or speed.)

We used to liten to Tokyo Rose quite frequently. On several of her broadcast, she called the Flying Tigers cowards because we refused to stay and fight, then challanged us to stop running away. We thought this was quite humurous, and at the same time, knew our tactics were hurting.

Also on some of Tokyo Rose's broadcasts, the number of AVG aircraft that the Japanese claimed to have shot down, was the exact number Japaese aircraft that we had destroyed. (We only lost 4 pilots in aerial combat.) This was the figure I used in giving our kill ratios. It had no bearing on the number of aircraft we or they destroy. Even [Dan] Ford has said that we killed approximately 400 air crew.

To show a couple examples of attacking enemy fighters: If you attack head on, which the enemy was reluctant to do, because our guns outranged the fighters, they would normally pull up. (If he started turning away, he would already be at a disadvantage.) You started firing at Max range, and then dive away, under these conditions we didn't turn and tangle with a Jap fighters.

Attacking the enemy from a 3 to 6 o'clock position.

Why roll rate was important, is that one must remember that all maneuvers, except for a loop, started with a roll. The slower the roll rate the longer it took before the turn began.

1. If he turned away, he set you up on his six. A most undesirable position for him, because he would be a dead duck.

2. The enemy invariably turned toward you which was normal and anticipated. With his slower roll rate, you could beat him into the turn, get a deflection shot at him, and when you slowed down to where he started gaining on you in the circle, you rolled and dove away before you were in his sights. If you haven't tried it don't knock it.

This is where roll rate came into the picture. As far as Japanese fighters were concerned, their inferior roll rate was at all speeds. Above 240, it would take the Zero 3 second before he attained bank angle for max turn. (And the airplane doesn't start turning until bank angle is established.)

Since you could see him starting to bank, which you would have anticipated, you could easily bank more quickly and establish max bank angle within 1 second, and pull whatever "Gs" necessary to establish lead.

At this speed, and with your lead already established, you could maintain lead for some time before speed bled off to where the Zero could turn inside, you got the hell out. (Don't forget same speed and same "G" equal same radius of turn. Above 220 IAS the radius of the circle was determined by pilots ability to withstand "Gs." You could turn with the Zero as long as the speed was above 220 IAS.

If his reaction was only to pull. At these speed the "G" factor still applies, beside the Zero could not take 6 "Gs," and the P-40 could pull over 9 "Gs." Most fighter pilots could "momentarily" withstand 9 "G's" or more without blacking out.

If the situation was reversed and the Zero was attacking you. Your roll rate would save your *** by allowing you to roll to max turning bank, use 6 "Gs" or more, then continue rolling to inverted and dive. Rolling 180 degrees to dive would take less than 2 seconds, the Zero took 6. The Zero would never get a shot. He couldn't get lead, and by the time he was inverted you would already be out of range, gaining speed much more rapidly than the Zero.

As can be seen from the above illustration, that in the beginning roll rate was the primary factor in starting any maneuver except the loop. After bank angle was established then speed was the primary factor. To escape from a zero, roll rate again became the primary factor then speed.

Anyone who disagrees with the above has never been in combat, and as far as I know, few books if any bring this out.

-

for me, as long as the above described actions happened at around those airspeeds in PF, i'd be happy. From fights a can remember, I recall outrolling Zeros quite clearly. Good enough for me, though i will be noting the speeds.

for shats and giggles, is all.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tailgator
12-30-2004, 04:51 AM
in the F6F-5 i seem to be stalling out at 105mph instead of the 90mph listed (thats if i converted the kmph to mph correctly) in the US Navy documents. could this be why so many are having so much trouble on take off now?

DangerForward
12-30-2004, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tttiger:
This is for the -5. The text points out there is considerable difference between the Navy Data and the Manufacturer's Data, with Manufacturer's Data anywhere from 10 mph to 30 mph faster.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think part of the reason the Navy speeds are different from the Grumman data is that it looks like the Navy plane has bomb and rocket racks installed. Which is what we have in the game. This is from looking at the weight breakdown in AHT. The base weight of the Navy plane is higher too, so there's something else installed as well(armor?).

VW-IceFire
12-30-2004, 09:10 AM
I think I'd prefer to use the Navy data as opposed to manufacturer data. That sounds more right to me...the manufacturer has a interest in showing their plane in the best possible light, the Navy has an interest in comparing theirs vs their opponents. But I could be wrong by circumstance here.

I'm going to go and fly a few tests right now.

In the meantime, I hope that the personal attacks from a few guys can be swept aside and we can have a legitimate discussion. No wonder the dev team rarely takes us seriously...when they have to sort through that sort of thing to get at what we're saing.

VW-IceFire
12-30-2004, 09:47 AM
Tossing my fuel into the fire:

- Crimea
- 12:00 noon
- Excellent weather
- Sea level and 5500 meters
- Throttle at 110%, WEP engaged (auto)
- Fuel: 100%
- Normal ordinance

Results:
Sea Level: 528kph TAS (or 328mph)
5500 meters (Stage 2 supercharging as indicated by the manual): 550kph TAS (or 341mph)

I think the high alt performance seems off. Something isn't right...try as I might, I could not achieve a good top speed up there. I did try Stage 3 but it didn't seem to do anything at all...(and its supposed to be engaged at 8100 meters apparently).

Aaron_GT
12-30-2004, 10:39 AM
IceFire: maybe it is the switch over bug for superchargers that was spotted for the 190 and P51? It might also be present for the F6F if 5500m is around the switchover point for stage 1 to 2? Just a theory...

ICDP
12-30-2004, 10:45 AM
Icefire, the F6F hits 385mph at that alt if the supercharger stage 3 is used.

VMF-214_HaVoK
12-30-2004, 10:48 AM
mado@1c.ru

VW-IceFire
12-30-2004, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
Icefire, the F6F hits 385mph at that alt if the supercharger stage 3 is used. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Interesting...the Readme says Stage is should be engaged over 8100 meters.

DangerForward
12-30-2004, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
Icefire, the F6F hits 385mph at that alt if the supercharger stage 3 is used. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Interesting...the Readme says Stage is should be engaged over 8100 meters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It might be just like the gears of a car, you can shift into a higher gear early, it just kills your acceleration. The higher gear though lets your top speed be higher. Maybe it's like that in some way.

tolwyn.com
12-30-2004, 11:45 AM
For the last time, Susan, I'm not going to punch your chocolate again toni...


Hey! How did this get in here?

p1ngu666
12-30-2004, 11:48 AM
each stage takes more engine power to run... but itll force more air into the engine.

u can see if a stage is better, by looking at manifold pressure gauge, if its higher, then its a better stage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
12-30-2004, 11:51 AM
btw, great pics of spit, got any more showing the gunsight/higher quality?

modelers need pics etc for making XIV, and that looks to me like the sight they need, not 100% sure

RedNeckerson
12-30-2004, 12:03 PM
I find this X_CRASH_X person to be very disturbing!

Blackdog5555
12-30-2004, 12:08 PM
Well, i did a couple of more sea level tests. Okinawa map. clean. 1/4 fuel. trim. cowl closed. super at first stage. start from 3000ft aceell to 350mph to 300 ft. then go level and fly for 3 minutes level. As i mentioned before the i dont know how accurate the games gauges are. After all this is a 3d computer program. But, when using the planes gauge i was stable at 307mph or under 310mph. when using the TAS gauge i was going 511 Km/h or 317mph.. speed bar had me at between 300-310, like the plane's 3D gauge. Almost feel like splitting hairs at this sea level thing but even taking the highest gauge reading, im still 10mph under. And see i was right about the high level power. the deal is that the Zero A6m5a can go 351mphTAS at those high altitudes. @ the same as the F6F. also, check the terminal velocity, thats off. If you get to 20,000 ft the plane can use the stage 3 blower(i guess) and i do get a 380mph TAS at 20-22 ft. Who goes that high? should get 380 at 15000-16000. I think i found out that the plane may not be as porked as i first posted. Buts it still underperforms. Im sure ther are only couple dozen people in the world who care that the F6F is modeled accurately. Who knows, it might be my program or hardware influening the numbers too. The plane is already slow (F6F) but by shaving a few number off of its performance, I think is an important factor. And i dont have any illusions, nothing is going to happen because of this post or any post. This is just a rant. the developers have their own agenda. For example Maddox agreed to fix the F4F because its wings broke off at 450mph before the patch. so he fix them all right. After the patch the F4F wings fall off at between 400-430mph. the F4F IRL had no redline in a dive. Diving is the only escape for a F4F...so what gives. Anyway, compare to RL, not very important.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
12-30-2004, 12:14 PM
TEST IT ON THE CRIMEA MAP!

JG51Beolke
12-30-2004, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by walsh2509:
If that reply was for me , sorry! This was not online. This was off line in a Single Mission and before I took off I had a look around F2 and the carrier was moving...

So with flaps set to Take Off and The enigne running 110% power, how come as soon as the tail wheel leaves the end of the deck the F6F starts to nose dive..

Could you please tell me how, or what more I have to do to stop it nose diving as soon as the tail wheel leaves the deck.

Thanks.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the Single Missions that are already created, have the Carriers only moving at 10mph. The carrier needs to be moving alot faster than that. Haven't tried a fast moving CVE yet.

ICDP
12-30-2004, 12:39 PM
Blackdog I can assure you I am very interested in getting the F6F to perform at is correct speeds and performance. I feel the same way about every single plane in PF+AEP+FB, all aircraft should be modelled to official data.

The F6F has an official top speed at SL of 317mph, at 23400 feet the top speed was 380mph (combat power), those are the official numbers from USN test data. I have seen higher numbers in other charts, SL 330mph and 399mph at 20100 feet.

Currently in PF the F6F-5 I can reach 325mph at SL (Icefire gets 328mph), at 21000 I get 385mph. Thes number are 8mph over official speed at SL and 5mph over official speeds at altitude. I do think a boost of about 5mph for all altitudes would be acceptable for the F6F but at the moment it is already slightly faster than official spec. Frankly if any fighters in PF are within 5mph of real data then I am happy and feel they are close enough.

Regards.

ICDP
12-30-2004, 01:19 PM
Blackdog,

I have tested the F6F-5 again, here are the results of my speedtests. Crimea map, 100% fuel, full power + WEP.

SL - 326mph (9mph over official data)
21000ft - 380mph supercharger satge 3 (matches official speed perfectly)
23000ft - 387mph supercharger stage 3
25000ft - 383mph supercharger stage 3

I trully am not seeing any problems with the F6F speeds at most altitudes. As I have said I have seen higher test numbers but not by much so the F6F is modelled slightly higher than official data as it stands in PF 3.03.

Regards

WUAF_Badsight
12-30-2004, 01:46 PM
if you dont use the crimea map , . . . .

YOUR TEST IS USELESS

p1ngu666
12-30-2004, 01:47 PM
the f6f was only abit better than the 5 series of zero, they where rushed into service about the same time i think.

the f6f is faster tho

most ppl care about corsair, then f6f/f4f and then bombers and then everything else in terms of pf content.

sad but true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

btw, i do want f6f tobe correct and all teh others http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WUAF_Badsight
12-30-2004, 01:49 PM
BTW , what data does the games Object Viewer say ?

thats the data that Maddox Games used in setting the Hellcats limits

if that is wrong , then you got to contact them about it

if you dont , your just making a place where you can view your moan on the internet as some sort of validation device

Blackdog5555
12-30-2004, 05:25 PM
I did more testing using IDCP advice. using only the "no window TAS Km/h indicator" and i did get favorable but wierd results. apparently the speed bar and the "TAS indicator" arent talking to each other. So in a 3D world who is right. But anyway, at 17,000 ft. i was getting a 249mph at the speed bar which computes to 333mph TAS, which is what made me post. But, using the TAS indicator i was showing 604-611 km.h which is right on the money. So my real whine is that the **** speed bar is porked, LOL. The F6F per the speed bar fell apart @500mph but the TAS indicator was showing @575.. which is not to far off... So.. if the the TAS indicator is the accurate one, then no problem. But i think its the **** speed bar. Also the bombsight conversion table may not be accurate either. I am still only getting 317mph SL pre the TAS..the gauge showed 305, but thats close enough. I would like to see 335mph but if you are testing/getting that then maybe its me. I was using the okinawa map. ill try crimea to cover the bases. My next post will be "Fix the Speedbar" Thanks for your responses. except __Crash__ tttiger is right about you. LOL ..happy new year..

WUAF_Badsight
12-30-2004, 06:01 PM
wait wait wait

you get asked to show your data source & you think this is "obnoxious" ?

i mean you didnt test right , & you cried that the Hellcat was porked . . . . Crash just wanted to know why you believed the numbers that you posted

sapre
12-30-2004, 06:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
I did more testing using IDCP advice. using only the "no window TAS Km/h indicator" and i did get favorable but wierd results. apparently the speed bar and the "TAS indicator" arent talking to each other. So in a 3D world who is right. But anyway, at 17,000 ft. i was getting a 249mph at the speed bar which computes to 333mph TAS, which is what made me post. But, using the TAS indicator i was showing 604-611 km.h which is right on the money. So my real whine is that the **** speed bar is porked, LOL. The F6F per the speed bar fell apart @500mph but the TAS indicator was showing @575.. which is not to far off... So.. if the the TAS indicator is the accurate one, then no problem. But i think its the **** speed bar. Also the bombsight conversion table may not be accurate either. I am still only getting 317mph SL pre the TAS..the gauge showed 305, but thats close enough. I would like to see 335mph but if you are testing/getting that then maybe its me. I was using the okinawa map. ill try crimea to cover the bases. My next post will be "Fix the Speedbar" Thanks for your responses. except __Crash__ tttiger is right about you. LOL ..happy new year.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speed Bar is using IAS(Indicated Air Speed) so it's not porked.

VW-IceFire
12-30-2004, 06:30 PM
Speed bar and in-cockpit guages are in IAS (except on the Me-262) and the virtual cockpit is using TAS. That may help. Virtual cockpit is in KPH regardless of speedbar settings.

A VERY long time ago Oleg said that the Crimea map was the best possible map to do testing on. I guess air density and all that is modeled so you will get different results on different maps. So for the sake of standardization...many of us have been just defaulting to Crimea for testing. I'd suggest doing the very same.

x__CRASH__x
12-30-2004, 07:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedNeckerson:
I find this X_CRASH_X person to be very disturbing! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did I fart?

x__CRASH__x
12-30-2004, 07:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
wait wait wait

you get asked to show your data source & you think this is "obnoxious" ?

i mean you didnt test right , & you cried that the Hellcat was porked . . . . Crash just wanted to know why you believed the numbers that you posted <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm so misunderstood.

Diablo310th
12-30-2004, 09:05 PM
Guys......I thought the problem with the Hellcat and Corsair were acceleration rates not necessarily top speeds. Or am i thinking of a different thread?

Blackdog5555
12-30-2004, 10:00 PM
Ok, let me be more clear about the speed bar thing. I know its in IAS..next. IAS converts to TAS...for that....you use a formula; such as how this guy does it with his DC3

Calibrated Airspeed CAS
Ground Speed GS
Indicated Airspeed IAS
True Airspeed TAS

Airspeed Formula to determine Ground Speed:

CAS +/- Installation / Position Error = IAS +/- Pressure & Temperature = TAS +/- Wind Vector = GS

Installation / Position Error is a number (plus or minus) to be applied to IAS based on the how the pitot tube is installed on a particular airplane, for any errors created by the location of static ports (vents) and for the instrument itself. On most aircraft, it's usually a small figure. Since we don't have an Installation Correction Card, we'll ignore it and assume that CAS and IAS are the same.

Actually, I skipped Equivalent Airspeed (EAS). EAS is CAS corrected for compressibility. As I recall, you get compressibility in really, really fast airplanes. Since the DC-3 doesn't fall in that category, we'll ignore it completely.

To convert IAS to TAS, you'll need to know the pressure altitude (altimeter setting) and the Outside Air Temperature (OAT).

When you know the TAS, all you have to do is apply the wind vector. You'll need to know the direction and velocity of the winds aloft and then apply them using an E6B (Computer Air Navigation) or the Virtual E6B (an electronic version of the E6B available on the DC-3 Airways web site).

If you're flying with wind you set in Flight Simulator (menu: World | Weather) you'll know the wind. I don't use any of those esoteric third-party software packages. If you do, you know better than I how to find winds aloft.

Now for the easier way ...

Computing TAS
an example:
I test flew the DC-3 at various airspeeds and altitudes up to 10,000 feet to get these rules of thumb. My original figures covered an entire page of a yellow pad, but I've distilled them down to the bare minimum.

While I ignore several items, these guides will put you in the ballpark for calculating Ground Speed. I doubt that you would miss the actual GS by more than 5 knots.

Altitude (feet) Knots to Add
to IAS for GS
2,000 5
4,000 10
6,000 10
8,000 15
10,000 20

Example: I'm flying at 6,000 feet with an IAS of 150 knots. Add 10 knots and TAS = 160 knots

Apply Winds

If you are flying with negligible winds, ignore them and TAS becomes a no-wind GS. So in the above example, my GS would be 160 knots.

If you have winds, apply them using the old E6B. If you don't have one, eyeball them. If you have a direct headwind, apply the full velocity of the wind and subtract it from TAS to get GS. If they are a direct tailwind, add the full velocity to TAS to get GS. For a quartering (45 degrees off heading) headwind, use half the velocity and subtract it. For a quartering tailwind, add half the velocity. Direct cross winds affect your track across the ground but won't change GS.

For this example, let's say we're flying north (360 degrees). Your computed TAS is 150 knots and winds are 20 knots from these headings:

Wind Direction Ground Speed
360 degrees 130 knots
180 degrees 170 knots
045 or 315 degrees 140 knots
135 or 225 degrees 160 knots
ent readings

ME; and what i was using was a bombsight conversion table to convert IAS to TAS. I sure there are better ways. The numbers didnt convert correctly .. the IAS not modeled correctly in the speed bar and iow..just bad math. I incorrectly presumed the speed bar gave good numbers. Test it your self. And yes for some, acceleration is still an issue with the F4U and the F6F...Cheers..

Blackdog5555
12-30-2004, 10:08 PM
BTW i used the "speed bar" because i thought i would save a step. my bad. But thanks for the advice Ice-Fire. Im not done complaining, yet. cheers...

Blackdog5555
12-30-2004, 10:10 PM
just to clear..the speed bar is close at SL but at altitude its way off.